Re: [uml-devel] Re: [patch 1/1] uml:fix ubd deadlock on SMP

[Chris Wright]

* BlaisorBlade (blaisorblade_spam@xxxxxxxx) wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 September 2004 20:12, Chris Wright wrote:
> > * blaisorblade_spam@xxxxxxxx (blaisorblade_spam@xxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > > Trivial: don't lock the queue spinlock when called from the request
> > > function. Since the faulty function must use spinlock in another case,
> > > double-case it. And since we will never use both functions together, let
> > > no object code be shared between them.
> >
> > Why not add a helper which locks around the core function.  Then either
> > call helper or core function directly depending on locking needs?
> I'm happy with whatever is nicer.

The way I outlined is nicer as it avoids all that conditional locking.
I can do a full patch if you like.

thanks,
-chris
-- 
Linux Security Modules     http://lsm.immunix.org     http://lsm.bkbits.net
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/